Euzebio v. McDonough

During the Vietnam War, service members stationed in Vietnam were exposed to Agent Orange, an herbicide containing dioxin. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Dioxin Act to ensure that veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange would receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) disability benefits for any service-connected disabilities that had been caused by Agent Orange based on scientific evidence. The Dioxin Act required the VA to evaluate scientific studies, determine the health effects of Agent Orange, and create a presumption of service connection for any disease that could be connected to dioxin exposure based on sound medical and scientific evidence. Congress also passed the Agent Orange Act, which required the VA to receive and review periodic reports from a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee about which diseases were likely to be caused by Agent Orange exposure. A veteran could pursue a disability claim based on a presumptively connected disease or for a disease that did not have a presumed connection to Agent Orange exposure by proving actual direct causation. Robert M. Euzebio served in Vietnam, during which Euzebio was exposed to Agent Orange. Forty years later, Euzebio developed thyroid nodules. Euzebio filed a claim for a service-connected disability, claiming that the thyroid nodules had been caused by Agent Orange exposure. The VA rejected Euzebio’s claim, and Euzebio appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). While Euzebio’s appeal to the board was pending, the NAS committee produced a report connecting an increased risk of thyroid conditions to herbicide exposure. The board denied Euzebio’s claim without providing Euzebio with a VA medical examination. The board explained that Euzebio’s statements attributing the thyroid nodules to Agent Orange exposure were conclusory and without evidentiary support and did not trigger the VA’s duty to assist with Euzebio’s claim. Euzebio appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), claiming that the NAS report was constructively before the board and that the board was therefore required to consider it when reviewing Euzebio’s claim. The Veterans Court affirmed the board's decision, and Euzebio appealed.